CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE question that arise for determination in this case is one under Sec. 10 (3) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, which is as follows :"a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building whether residential or non-residential, may, notwithstanding anything in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be. "on this point two decisions of this court are placed before me. One is the decision in Shajehan Saheb v. Yakub Khan Saheb, (196 2) 1 Andh WR 205 at p. 210 in which it is held that :". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The landlord cannot evict a tenant from a residential building when he required it for a non-residential purpose ; similarly, he could only evict a tenant from a portion of the building which is used for non-residential purpose by the tenant, only if he required that portion for n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document